PREM CHAND Vs. MEHAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This judgment will dispose of three petitions, Civil Revisions Nos. 2782, 2949 and 2950 of 1986, as they involve similar facts and common questions of law.

(2.) Proprietors of four village, Rehmana, Bajana Khurd, Sitawali and Awaspur claiming themselves to be the owners of the abadi deh filed for court suits for partition and possession of their individual shares. In all the suits, preliminary decrees were passed and in one of them Civil Suits No. 1329 of 1972 (Chattar Singh and others v. Chandgi and others), even the final decree was passed on February 13, 1976. Before any further proceedings could be taken, sub clause (4-a) in Section 2(g) was inserted by the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Haryana Amendment Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') whereby vacant lands situate in abadi deh or gora deh not owned by any person were included in the definition of shamilat deh. The judgment debtors, relying thereon, filed objections that the land in dispute being shamilat deh by virtue of the said provision vests in the Gram Panchayat and, as such, the decrees passed have been rendered unenforceable and the suits liable to be dismissed. Their objections were sustained by the trial Court and the cases consigned to be the record with the observation that no further action could be taken in the matter. Aggrieved thereby, the plaintiffs went in appeal and the learned Additional District Judge vide judgment dated February 5, 1979, reminded the cases to the trial Court to determine as to whether the suit land was not covered by the words shamilat deh as defined in Section 2(g) inclusive of the newly inserted clause (4-a) of the act and further directed that in case it was found that the suit land did not fall within the purview of shamilat deh and was otherwise of partible nature, to proceed to dispose of the suit in accordance with law.

(3.) Although the learned Additional District Judge observed in his judgment that the provisions of newly inserted clause (4-a) were retrospective in operation, yet the trial Court, relying on a Divison Bench decision of this Court in Bajinder Singh and another v. The Assistant Collector 1st Grade and others,1983 PunLJ 116, over-ruled the objections duly exercised by the Civil Court and the decrees passed prior to the insertion of the new clause. Dissatisfied therewith, the defendants have approached this Court by way of these revisions.